Mission Statement - De-Spinning the Pro-Taser Propaganda

The primary purpose of this blog is to provide an outlet for my observations and analysis about tasers, taser "associated" deaths, and the behaviour exhibited by the management, employees and minions of Taser International. In general, everything is linked back to external sources, often via previous posts on the same topic, so that readers can fact-check to their heart's content. This blog was started in late-2007 when Canadians were enraged by the taser death of Robert Dziekanski and four others in a short three month period. The cocky attitude exhibited by the Taser International spokespuppet, and his preposterous proposal that Mr. Dziekanski coincidentally died of "excited delirium" at the time of his taser-death, led me to choose the blog name I did and provides my motivation. I have zero financial ties to this issue.

Glens Falls (NY) Police use the policy recommended by stun gun maker Taser International to guide when and how the tasers are used. Bethel would not release that policy, saying City Lawyer Ronald Newell's opinion was that the policy should not be released, for safety reasons... [LINK]

Other reports ([LINK]*) say 95% of agencies do the same thing: use policies recommended by Taser.

(* ACLU-NC: The company continues to downplay safety concerns and bills its product as “non-lethal.” Taser’s reluctance to acknowledge potential dangers is particularly disturbing as over 95% of surveyed police departments rely on use policies supplied entirely by the manufacturer.)

So what is the actual truth?

Either the news reports are incorrect (seems unlikely), or Taser is not telling the truth (?), or perhaps Mr. Brave is unaware of what the Smith Bros. have been up to (?).

Please feel free to leave comments explaining this discrepancy. I'm very open to getting some additional information regarding this discrepancy.

CINCINNATI (AP) -- A police officer responding to a burglary alarm at a restaurant acted inappropriately when he used a stun gun on a high school student who didn't respond to the officer's commands to stop walking away from the scene, according to an internal investigation. Officer Andrew Mitchell fired the stun gun on Chris Bauer Jr. without first warning him, the report released Thursday by the city's police department said.

Bauer, 19, was walking in a parking lot with his hands in his pockets and his head down. He showed no signs he knew the officer was there nor displayed any signs of aggression or resistance, the report concluded. Bauer, who fell to the pavement and chipped a tooth, didn't hear the officer's commands because he was listening to his iPod, his attorney John Helbling said. Earphones and a portable audio device were found next Bauer, but Mitchell told investigators that he didn't think Bauer had been wearing the earphones. The issue was inconclusive [*], the internal report states.

[* No it isn't. If kids have iPods, then they're listening to them unless the battery is dead. This flimsy excuse is stupid, nonsensical and a flagrant attempt to find a reason to blame the victim. Yeah, good luck with that one.]

The review faults Mitchell for not verifying if a holdup had taken place and for failing to get a description of any suspects before telling Bauer to stop. A disciplinary hearing was scheduled for April 10. Kathy Harrell, a spokeswoman for the Cincinnati Fraternal Order of Police, said Mitchell did what he felt was necessary. "This officer at the time had information that there was a robbery in progress," [**] she said. "There's an individual that's leaving at a quick pace, not obeying their orders."

[** No he didn't have information that there was "a robbery in progress". He had information that there was an alarm. He should arrive promptly and investigate with an open mind. Not start shooting off his weapons like an idiot. 'Quick pace' is probably normal walking speed for many people. Lunatic excuses. Hey Harrell, why not stop being an apologist for the idiot officer that made a very serious mistake?]

Bauer, who also suffered cuts to his face in the fall, has memory loss and other problems, his attorney said.

I recommend a minimum 6-figure settlement simply because we need to get the point across to the thick-headed that such behavior is not tolerated. Even $1 million wouldn't be out of line; and would certainly get their attention. A token settlement in the 5-figures range would simply fail to convey the seriousness of this incident.

This incident also reveals the lies and propaganda regarding the all-too-common real-world application of tasers.

Lie: "They're only used against violent criminals"Truth: "...nor displayed any signs of aggression or resistance..."

Lie: Just obey and you won't get zapped:Truth: "...didn't hear the officer's commands because he was listening to his iPod..."

These sorts of outlandish examples are coming out faster than Taser's stupid press releases about the occasional success stories.

Coroners and Medical Examiners, who are apparently spending more and more time looking at victims that have died shortly after being tasered, typically do not find any physical evidence of how the taser might have caused the death.

I'm still not sure what they think that they'd be looking for... (discussed in previous posts [LINK1] [LINK2] ).

Therefore, they often conclude, the taser incident that happened just before the death had nothing to do with the death. Instead, they sometimes use the phrase 'Excited Delirium' and list that as a cause of death.

...After Roland M. Kohr, a coroner, spoke about his concerns with the death of an Indiana inmate who had been jolted with a Taser, the company sued him for defamation, product disparagement and other claims in 2005. He is not alone.

In November, 2006, Taser filed a lawsuit against a chief medical examiner in Ohio. The suit seeks to "correct erroneous cause-of-death determinations relating to the autopsy reports prepared by medical examiner Dr. Lisa Kohler, which associate the Taser device as being a contributing factor in the deaths of Richard Holcomb and Dennis Hyde," according to the company's filing with the SEC.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

SAE J1766 'Recommended Practice for Electric and Hybrid Electric Vehicle Battery Systems Crash Integrity Testing': Using IEC 479-1 as a guide, a body current of 200 mA for 10 msec yields the lowest energy level that may produce a shock hazard. (Here a shock hazard is defined to be a body current / time duration that is in the DC-3 zone defined in IEC 479-1.) Assuming this minimum as an upper safety bound. Figure 1 below shows Current Duration versus Voltage at 200 mA for various energy levels. Using the target of 200 mA for less then 0.01 seconds as an upper safety bound, an energy of 0.4 J would satisfy the target values. A factor of two is included yielding the final energy limit of 0.2 J. [LINK]Taser specification for M26 taser: Power Output: 50,000 Volt (est.); 26 Watts; 162mA (Irms) and 1.76 Joules per pulse energy (Delivered into load: 0.50 joules)

At this point I would like to point out that 1.76 J (or even 0.5 J) is greater than 0.2 J (or even 0.4 J). No matter how you slice and dice it.

Also, you might wish to consider that Taser's 151 mA RMS for 5 seconds (or 5000 milliseconds) is huge in comparison to 200 mA for just 10 milliseconds.

A stun gun would be officially classified as “dangerous weapon” under a bill state lawmakers are considering. ... Sen. Herman Quirmbach, a Democrat from Ames, pointed out that the law defines a dangerous weapon as a device designed primarily for inflicting death or injury. ... Stun guns would be lumped in with pistols, daggers, stilettos, switchblade knives and other weapons if this bill passes. House File 2628 was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee today; next stop is the full Senate.

It really must be a Laugh-A-Minute to work in the Public Relations department at Taser. Perhaps they'll be putting in another long day tomorrow to deal with this latest assault on the reputation of their products.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

I was Googling 'IEC 479-1' (the electrocution standard that Taser and Ruggieri argued about) to see what's what, and I noted that THIS BLOG is the 7th hit followed directly by the pro-Taser website PoliceOne.com in 8th spot. It is nice to see that my rebuttal is ahead of the Taser press release about Ruggieri and IEC 479-1 (at least on Google.ca).

There's a subtle (not really) error, or propaganda trick, being tossed into the latest debate about the taser statistics in Canada.

First the taser advocates will rightly point out that a reported 'taser incident' does not always represent a complete deployment (where the victim is actually shocked). Even if the taser is just displayed as a deterrent, a formal 'taser incident' report may have to be filed. For that reason, the actual taser-shock incidents are not as common as the raw data may appear.

Fair enough. This is good news in that it reduces the actual taser abuse rate from the insanely ridiculous to the simply insane.

But then another taser advocate will use the same raw statistics to compute a flawed calculation purported to demonstrate the low risk of death.

Ah, wait a second...

Yes, displaying a taser as a deterrent probably won't kill anyone. Duh. Using a taser in Drive Mode (pressed into the victim) might be safer than shooting the X26 barbs across the chest where the current distribution may be more risky.

So let's review the stats with some estimates to compensate for this factor. This will be based on some guesstimates. If the RCMP would like to provide corrections, please - send them in.

2007 British Columbia: 496 taser incidents

How many were actual X26 barbs fired into the chest in B.C. during 2007? Probably a fairly small fraction of the raw 496 incident count. It seems (based on the news) that most taser deployments are in Drive Mode where the gun in pressed into the victim (often in the back - a possible self-evident indicator for torture as opposed to self-defence by the way).

Chest hits with the X26 are almost certainly less than 10% of the total taser incident rate. Almost certainly more than 2%. These are guesstimates to set reasonable bounds on the secret data. If anyone has actual deployment data, then please feel free to provide it.

So lets choose 5% (a guesstimate) as the precentage of these 'taser incidents' where the X26 was actually fired AND the X26 barbs landed somewhere on the chest. This (5% of 496) is the required denominator for the calculation. So, roughly 25 taserings across the chest in British Columbia during 2007.

It might be 50; it might be 10. Something roughly in that range. If you have a more reliable number, please - send it in.

Deaths in British Columbia 2007: Either one or two (Robert Dziekanski killed Oct. 2007, and Robert Knipstrom, died Nov. 2007). This is the required numerator for the calculation.

Might be 1% (maybe). Might be 10% (maybe). Might be a bit higher. Might be a bit lower.

This finding is reasonably aligned with the common sense reaction to the spate of taser-associated deaths in Canada in late 2007. There were FIVE during THREE MONTHS (September to November 2007). That's what caught the attention of Canadians.

So the taser is not quite as bad as Russian Roulette (1 bullet in 6 chambers), but it's still arguably dangerous if the X26 barbs land in a worst case location and other factors (luck, fitness, who knows?) conspire against you.

The News & Record newspaper of Greensboro, NC tells it like it is. No holds barred.

[Quote - emphasis added]

Deadly Taser use demands thorough, open investigation

Tuesday, Mar. 25, 2008 3:00 am

A police officer doesn't use a Taser when deadly force is needed. So when a stun gun kills, as it did last week in Charlotte, something went wrong. There must be a thorough and transparent investigation to find out why.

The victim was Darryl Wayne Turner, only 17. He was having an angry argument with his supervisor at a grocery store when police were called. An officer arrived, and a "highly agitated" Turner "advanced" at the officer, refusing commands to stop, police said. The officer responded with the Taser. Turned collapsed and was taken to a hospital, where he died.

The Taser is a legitimate tool for police officers who need to subdue someone without using a firearm. It's not considered life-threatening -- yet it obviously has the potential to kill. For that reason, officers faced with the choice of using a Taser or not must consider the worst possibility and make absolutely certain of the necessity.

Officers who assume a weapon won't cause serious harm might be too quick to use it. But that's not a safe assumption about a Taser.

An investigation must determine whether there were medical factors or other circumstances that contributed to Turner's death. It also must review the events that led to the officer's decision. Would some other action have been better? These questions have to be answered openly.

Tasers are employed widely by law-enforcement agencies. They're carried by officers on some Guilford County school campuses. Parents, and the general public, deserve to know about the lethal potential of these weapons, and they need to be satisfied that well-trained officers will use them only when absolutely required.

When someone dies, particularly a young person, it's critical to know why it happened and how it could have been avoided.

Attention - do not miss the exchange of comments on the previous post.

Someone going by the username 'gettir' is either Taser's famous Dr. Kroll himself, or someone cutting-and-pasting Dr. Kroll's exact words.

Normally, I'd just delete such propaganda from Taser spokespuppets left as comments (as warned by the notice at the top of the comment section of this blog), but since this is the first clear example of such rubbish, I thought I take the time to draw-and-quarter the pathetic arguments and hang the remains on the city gate as warning to other Taser spokespuppets.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

On the recent CBC News item, people have been leaving comments [LINK]. Most are good comments, but the paid Taser spokespuppet David E. Zuskin made a predictable appearance under the name 'Proud American' with his trademark ALL CAPS idiot company slogan. A few comments are laughably ill-informed or simply insane:

Yorkke wrote: Let's remember that every cop who uses a taser has been tased themselves. How many died? Zero. How many injured? Zero.Rebuttal: First, police are almost never tasered across the chest. Usually just on the back in Drive Mode (closely spaced contacts). This provides an extremely low cardiac risk to due to the very short current path between the gun-mounted probes (nowhere near the heart). Sometimes they're tasered just down one leg (harmless). Second, many police HAVE been injured (many back injuries). Some claim thousands have been injured and the records shredded (Pamela Schreiner) - this allegation has not been proven. Taser admits quite a few injuries in their annual report. Many agencies have stopped the stupid practice of tasering students due to too many injuries.

Zambo0518 wrote: I have a problem with the citizens who suppose to be respect the officers. I would say, whoever running away from the officer, or disrespect the officer should be tasered. It is so simple.Rebuttal: Oh-my-God.

We are still waiting on the autopsy results for a Charlotte teen who died after a police officer deployed a taser last week. Darryl Turner got into an argument with his boss at a Food Lion store in Northeast Charlotte. When police arrived at the scene, a cop used a taser on the 17-year-old [and he tragically died].

While we are still waiting on the official cause of death, focus has now turned to something called Excited Delirium. Some say this is a condition that can kill a person who has been tasered and others say it doesn't even exist.

Dr. Alan Jones works in the Emergency Room at Carolinas Medical Center. "Excited delirium is a term used by [brainwashed] doctors to describe a state in which a patient is delirious or agitated," he said. Jones says if someone is extremely agitated with a high heart rate or high blood pressure, an electric shock from a taser could contribute to a heart attack or stroke.

Turner's mother wants to sue over the death of her son. Her attorney says he is looking into whether or not the use of force was appropriate under the circumstances.

You spelled "cause" incorrectly.

Geesh. A young apparently-healthy man, who is a inarguably 'worked up', gets tasered to death, and they're thinking of blaming the fact that he is 'worked up'? Might as well blame his shoes. It is (obviously I believe) extremely unlikely that he would have died had he not been tasered.

The fact that Taser is totally unwilling to admit causing even a single death, all the while acknowledging that the taser is "not without risk", and never stating what exactly are the calculated risks of death under various circumstances, indicates their intellectual dishonesty.

UPDATE: "...witness to the incident who gives a very different account than police... The witness said Turner simply obeyed the officer's command to step back and was then hit with the Taser. He later died. ..." [LINK] - updated added 25 March 2008

Monday, March 24, 2008

Most of the arguments presented by Taser and the police fall to pieces with even a cursory examination.

Better than a gun? Don't be stupid. Taser deployments are about two orders of magnitude (~100:1) more frequent than the historical/accepted rate of police shootings (varies by jurisdiction). It’s not even a good lie that tasers replace the gun. Tasers replace talking; to just 24 seconds in the Vancouver Airport incident for example.

Tasers are safe? The technical details are a bit too complicated for the average person. Putting it simply, the characteristics (frequency spectrum of the waveform current) that Taser claims are safe on the older, less-common M26 model are the opposite for the newer, more-common X26 model introduced in 2003. It appears that they wanted to ensure that the newer model would ‘drop’ more criminals, but perhaps they overshot the mark a bit?

The statistics are certainly going the wrong way as the X26 model becomes more common. Taser has certainly been in the news a lot more after 2003.

Ethics and money? Taser shows some signs of being an ethically-challenged organization. A former director facing 142 years worth of criminal charges. Stock options everywhere you look (millions). Promoting 'Excited Delirium" as some sort of fantasy explanation for why taser-victims fell over and died shortly after being tasered. Friendly coroners accepting paid travel, but those coroners that make findings that are not aligned with the company position are sued. So-called “independent” (sic) director being heavily involved financially while sitting as Chair of their in-house so-called Medical Advisory Board.

The police also have major issues to address.

Their 'Scale of Force' tables appeared to be legally flawed. They appear to have confused lawful ‘force’ (noun) with illegally ‘force’ (verb) and thereby stepped over the fine line between The Rule of Law and A Police State. Example, “Do what I say or I will taser you” is illegal on several counts (Criminal Code of Canada 269.1 for example).

If someone is illegally disobeying a lawful order, then add that charge to the list and bring them before the court using reasonable force (not torture). Nobody ever gave the police the right to apply ’severe pain’ to ‘intimidate’, or to ‘coerce’ obedience (read 269.1). Even the courts cannot apply electric shock as punishment. What lunatic police officer was the first to make the assumption that he now has more power than even the courts? Idiots.

Note - The above point is in the situation of passive resistance or failure to cooperate. If the subject is violent, then the police are obviously allowed to defend themselves. So please don't bother us with that straw-man argument - that's not a point of contention. But don't think for one second that tasers are only ever used in violent cases - follow the news do you?

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Within 30 seconds of [Officer] Thompson's arrival, the video shows him striking Zehm with a baton and Tasering him. Zehm was knocked to the floor and struck at least six times by Thompson's baton. A second officer, Steve Braun Jr., used the touch probes on his Taser to zap Zehm two additional times with 50,000 volts of electricity.

The enhanced video shows Zehm holding a 2-liter bottle of soda -- not as an offensive weapon "lunging at an officer," as police administrators initially contended but in an apparent defensive posture in front of his head to block the officer's baton, according to sources. The video also shows the "hobbled" Zehm spent most of the time on his stomach -- a contributing cause of his death, according to the medical examiner -- and not on his side as senior police administrators initially described.

As part of the FBI investigation, the videos are being reviewed by experts in police procedure and use of force, sources said. The investigation also could include a review of the records of the officers involved and how many times they each have used force on the job. Braun had used his Taser in three earlier incidents, according to department "use of force" records. One of those, in July 2004, involved a mentally ill man who was carrying methamphetamine. Before the Zehm encounter, Thompson had used his Taser seven times since Jan. 1, 2003, the records show, including once on a handcuffed, mentally ill woman.

It is worth noting the misinformation:1) "lunging at an officer" versus defending himself2) Hobbled on his stomach, versus on his side3) Taser: "Tasers replace guns" - seven times for Thompson I guess.

This level of misinformation seems to be all too common in such cases. The same sort of thing happened with the Robert Dziekanski incident where the RCMP spokespuppet made some outlandish claims later shown to be false. You should keep this level of propaganda in mind when sifting through the news.

The insane degree of haste is another common feature (30 seconds, 24 seconds).

Police should do a lot better. It seems that at least some require a major attitude adjustment.

Looking over some of the on-line arguments about tasers, it seems that some people are missing what should be a common sense starting point.

Let me explain it by way of an example:

A 20-something young man gets excited about some disagreement. Police are called. Police arrive. Minutes later the young man is dead. The natural question would be, "What the heck did you do to him?" The officers might reply, "Nothing. He just keeled over and died."

Such a story is improbable. It might happen once in a long while, but it would be asking us to stretch the bounds of incredulity to accept that such an event would be anything but extremely rare; and I mean rare in an absolute sense. I've seen many people in an excited rage, and I've never seen anyone keel over and die from it. Plain and simple, it's exceedingly rare.

Now add a taser deployment to the story.

"Nothing. We just tasered him and he coincidently keeled over and died of natural causes at the same time."

Does adding the taser make the original (unbelievable) story more believable, or less believable?

Like I said, this should be common sense.

And because so many people seem to lack the basics of logical thought, it makes arguments about tasers very tough sledding.

An Austin police officer and two former police officers will be in a federal courtroom on Monday. William "Brad" Heilman, Christopher Gray, and Joel Follmer are being sued for tasering Ramon Hernandez in September of 2005.

Hernandez claims the officers tased, punched and kicked him while he was in handcuffs. The incident was caught on video and was used in a criminal trial against the officers in 2006, but a jury acquitted Gray and Heilman. The charges against Follmer were eventually dropped. Follmer was fired following the incident. Heilman quit the force and Gray was suspended but he's since returned to the force.

This case will be tried in a civil courtroom.

I'm thinking that perhaps other approaches might be a bit cheaper in the long run. Can any jurisdiction actually afford to provide tasers to their police officers if this sort of aftershock follows? Each example of misuse ends up dragging through the legal system for years afterward. Officers being fired and suspended.

Where's the savings?

Perhaps if the training (annual 'Use of Force' refresher training, as opposed to mindless corporate brainwashing) is brought up to a reasonable standard, there's a reasonable chance that it won't be a financial fiasco. But since a reported 95% of agencies simply cut-and-paste their taser Use Policies from Taser's own propaganda, what would you expect?

The advantage of a normal gun, is that even the most thick-headed police officer perfectly understands the consequences. With a taser, his training may have misled him that it is almost perfectly harmless and almost always perfectly legal. In some cases, these assumptions are not correct.

In my opinion, Taser International Inc should be a co-defendant in these sorts of cases. These actions may be traceable to training and policy, and the training and policy are probably traceable back to Taser.

Imagine if the makers of high performance motorcycles were advertising to excitable young men that their products were perfectly safe, and perfectly legal under all circumstances. What sort of misuse would flow from such a marketing campaign? You can imagine the carnage.

This image of customers being led down the garden path somehow seems familiar...

L.A. County Sheriff Lee Baca added that he was concerned ... that deputies and supervisors may not have sufficiently explored alternatives to the stun gun. [LINK]

I've got an idea:

Perhaps the design of the taser devices could be modified so that some of the electric shock goes back through the handle so that the officers get a painful shock into their hand with each deployment. It would probably be relatively safe from the cardiac point of view since the path would just be across the one hand. Such "usage consideration feedback" might ensure that the officers fully consider the alternates before pressing the trigger. It would probably go a long way to sorting out some of the problems swirling around tasers and their all-too-frequent misuse.

Man Sues Easton Police Over Taser Incident - Easton, PA and its police department have been slapped with a million-dollar lawsuit. Elijah McNeil claims he was shot twice with Tasers and kicked in the head during an incident last October. The suit claims McNeil was sleeping at the time, and not posing a threat to the officers. He's asking for at least $1 million in damages. ... [LINK]

But it's true. Tasers do save money...

Easton, PA - Settlement negotiations have begun in a $20 million lawsuit filed by the widow of an Easton police officer who was fatally shot by a colleague. ... In March 2005, Officer Jesse Sollman was accidentally shot and killed in the Easton police station by Officer Matthew Renninger. [LINK]

I have to agree that $1M (grotesque taser abuse) is considerably less than $20M (tragic gun accident) {{ROLLS EYES}}.

Saturday, March 22, 2008

So far as human knowledge reveals, time is (in the largest possible sense) completely unlimited. Well not quite - the Sun will eventually enter the Red Giant phase, but that's quite some time off.

Many examples of the sorts of situations where taser usage is all-too-common are the human-equivalent of a cat up a tree.

The authorities can "take action" (which is often stupid and always risky), or simply allow the passage of time to work its magic (which may be a much smarter move).

This 'wait them out' approach may clash with the testosterone-driven Type A personalities that often wear a badge, but the concept ('wait them out') should be added to the Use of Force policy ahead of most of the other options. Especially where the subject is in a situation where waiting them out would do no harm.

Considering the paperwork, risk to the victim, and risk of lawsuits that may follow taser deployment, allowing a few more hours to pass may actually be less of a time sink as well (perhaps by a huge ratio).

Friday, March 21, 2008

Dr. Mark Kroll has made a great deal of money (MILLIONS?) from Taser stock options.

At the same time, Kroll has been Chairman of Taser's in-house so-called Medical Advisory Board.

This conflict of interest isn't even subtle.

Who made the decision to arrange things so that the Chairman of Taser's in-house 'Medical Advisory Board' would be sitting on a thick stack of TASR stock options?

The outcome - entirely predictable - would be an approach that the taser devices would increasingly be designed towards maximum stun-effect (to maximize sales) with just barely enough safety margin to provide some mid-term plausible deniability (to hold off the inevitable lawsuits while the stock options are cashed-in).

With respect to Ethics 101, this example is an 800 lb gorilla.

Wiki another definition: ..."plausible deniability" can also apply to any act that leaves little or no evidence of wrongdoing or abuse. Examples of this are the use of electricity or pain-compliance holds as a means of torture or punishment, leaving little or no tangible signs that the abuse ever took place.

Remember when Taser chief Smith testified in Ottawa that Taser does not set taser-use policies?

Compare and contrast to this.

Policy set for use: Glens Falls (NY) Police use the policy recommended by stun gun maker Taser International to guide when and how the tasers are used. Bethel would not release that policy, saying City Lawyer Ronald Newell's opinion was that the policy should not be released, for safety reasons. ... In the Police Department's use of force continuum, the taser is the first option to control someone who is fighting with police... [LINK]

Smith's answer borders on being an outright lie. What Smith did was mislead the members of SECU with an answer that hinged on the subtle gap between 'setting policy' and 'recommending policy'. This is the sort of ethical parameters that you're dealing with when you're dealing with Taser. There is a pattern.

Time to subpoena some documents from Taser, Taser's Canadian distributor, and the RCMP and other forces.

The fundamental concept of the taser, going back to the purported tear-jerking fable about why the Smith brothers got involved, all rest on the lie that the taser is a replacement for the gun. Sounds good on its face.

(CP) VANCOUVER -- [LINK] A coroner's inquest into the death of a Polish immigrant last October at Vancouver International Airport has been delayed. That's because the police investigation into Robert Dziekanski's death has not yet been completed. Dziekanski died when an RCMP officer used a Taser on him...

Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle): "It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

Thursday, March 20, 2008

DARLINGTON, Wis. [LINK] -- Acting on a recommendation by its police commission, Darlington's City Council unanimously approved the purchase of one Taser -- an electroshock weapon meant to stun and subdue a targeted subject from a distance -- for its Police Department. It costs $1,700. In his presentation to commission members, Darlington Police Chief Jason King said more than half of Lafayette County's law enforcement agencies use the Taser technology, mainly as a deterrent. During the council meeting, King cited 14 examples in the past five years where the Taser would have been useful in resolving a conflict.

Prediction: They'll probably use their new tasers about one hundred times in total over the NEXT five years. This conservative estimate is based on the typical usage rate as compared to the probably perfectly-reasonable "14 examples" used to justify the purchase at the outset.

Chicago Tribune (LINK) used the heading "Man's death possibly caused by taser" to head their video report.

Here is the webpage clipping:

There are a couple of very interesting angles to this story.

The first is that the Chicago Tribune is big enough to tell Taser to get stuffed.

The second detail is that the autopsy will be performed by the Cook County Medical Examiner's office. There are some independently-minded folks in that office. It seems unlikely that this death will be attributed to Excited Delirium.

Sunday, March 16, 2008

... Nearly four months after the release of the ACLU-NC report, Taser International (“TI”) published a response attacking the ACLU-NC for “endangering communities” through its calls for more responsible Taser regulation. The TI report is replete with inaccuracies and fundamental misrepresentations -- including a complete mischaracterization of the ACLU-NC’s position on Tasers.

Once again, when faced with well-documented concerns about its Tasers, its marketing practices and its deployment, training and policy recommendations, Taser International has resorted to its all too familiar game of “attack the messenger, obscure the message.” Obviously hoping to confuse and distract readers, TI has produced a 41-page “response” report that scrupulously avoids the core findings of the ACLU-NC’s initial report. Rather than confront our findings head on, TI has tried to change the topic. ...

ACLU-NC: "...as over 95% of surveyed police departments rely on [taser] Use Policies supplied entirely by the manufacturer."

Read that again.

The implications are staggering.

If this is true, then it makes a lie of what Taser Chair Smith testified in Ottawa where he stated something along the lines of, "Taser doesn't make taser-use policy."

Well apparently they do. They not only write it, but they supply it to police forces.

Disgusting.

Regulators should investigate how many police forces have adopted Taser-written taser-use policies. If they find any, then those involved in such nonsense should be severely reprimanded (for lacking common sense).

I'm not sure about the liability implications of this, but get your money out of TASR stock as soon as possible.

Schlosberg found that even as stun-gun-related deaths rise dramatically, the weapon remains largely unregulated. “We fear that in the absence of strong regulations on how police use the weapon,” said Schlosberg, “we are likely to see more unnecessary deaths.”

Taser International, the Scottsdale, Arizona-based manufacturer, has yet to concede that their product has led to a single identifiable death. The company continues to downplay safety concerns and bills its product as “non-lethal.” Taser’s reluctance to acknowledge potential dangers is particularly disturbing as over 95% of surveyed police departments rely on use policies supplied entirely by the manufacturer.

The ACLU-NC has been working to reform Taser policies and issued the following recommendations:

* Pass legislation that allows Tasers to be used solely as an alternative to deadly force. * Adopt stricter policies that strictly regulate the number and duration of Taser shocks. Policies should protect vulnerable populations such as children, the elderly, pregnant women, and people under the influence of drugs. * Bring all training materials in line with new information and retrain all officers who have completed the Taser International training.

The ACLU-NC "Stun Gun" report was distributed to every police and sheriff’s department in Northern and Central California with over 25 sworn officers; to smaller departments known to use Tasers; and to city councils and supervisors in key areas. "The Stun Gun Fallacy" was widely read, and it has succeeded in effecting policy changes in jurisdictions throughout the region. Though many Taser regulations remain flawed, several police departments have recently changed their Taser regulations. The new guidelines represent a step in the right direction.

From the Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; and ∗Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

Taser-Induced Myocardial Capture

Introduction: A Taser weapon is designed to incapacitate violent individuals by causing temporary neuromuscular paralysis due to current application. We report the first case of a Taser application in a person with a dual-chamber pacemaker demonstrating evidence of Taser-induced myocardial capture.

Methods and Results: Device interrogation was performed in a 53-year-old man with a dual-chamber pacemaker who had received a Taser shot consisting of two barbs delivered simultaneously. Assessment of pacemaker function after Taser application demonstrated normal sensing, pacing thresholds, and lead impedances. Stored event data revealed two high ventricular rate episodes corresponding to the exact time of the Taser application.

Conclusions: This report describes the first human case of ventricular myocardial capture at a rapid rate resulting from a Taser application. This raises the issue as to whether conducted energy devices can cause primary myocardial capture or capture only in association with cardiac devices providing a preferential pathway of conduction to the myocardium.

Let's review:

1) Not a swine model, but an actual human.2) Data appears to offer no escape.3) The only thing left is if the pacemaker wiring contributed to the issue (*).

(* The same issue that Taser previously pretended to not understand.)

Here are some additional extracts from the paper:

Kornblum et al. performed autopsies in 16 individual deaths associated with Taser applications. (ref 12) They identified one directly attributable to Taser application. (ref 12) In an editorial, Allen, a medical examiner involved with several of the death investigations, commented that up to nine causes of death were associated with Taser. (ref 13)

Regarding the very clear (ultra-clear) case where the Brattleboro officers used a taser to literally torture the two protesters that had chained themselves to a barrel, semi-professional Taser spokespuppet 'Dave' posted the following gem:

"The Officers should have placed the Taser where the sun don't shine and lit the hippies up for an extended period." Dave (David E. Zuskin), Poquoson, VA

Keep in mind that this case of taser abuse couldn't be more clear. Two peaceful protesters chained themselves to a barrel of sand. Officers decided to use the taser to literally torture the protesters until they released themselves.

Correct procedures, i.e. the procedures that wouldn't get the officers in SERIOUS trouble, are as follows:

1) Call for chain cutters.2) Monitor the protesters to make sure they don't, ah never mind, they've chained themselves down to a barrel of sand...3) When the chain cutters arrive, cut the chains and take the protesters into custody.

If at any time the protesters switch from passive resistance to any form of aggression, then the police may of course use self-defense and reasonable force. That seems very unlikely to happen if the protesters keep their wits about them.

Those that don't understand these basics of law should keep their trap shut. Everyone has more to fear in the long run from the jackboot of police abuse than from a couple of peaceful protesters chained to a barrel.

Seriously folks - read history.

These protesters WILL eventually be given a check. No question. They might have to go to a higher court, but they will win in the end. Oh, not to say that they won't be convicted of trespassing, but the act of torture by the police is a much more serious offense.

But they will get a settlement. Exactly like the $40,000 given to the Utah speeder. Seriously. this case is MUCH more clear. You can't claim that these two protesters represented a threat, after all they were chained to a barrel.

Friday, March 14, 2008

"...At 7 a.m. on July 24, police visited the site to find two remaining protesters, Crowell and Kilmurray, had chained themselves to a barrel full of sand, which is meant to stymie law enforcement efforts to remove protesters. The officers informed Crowell and Kilmurray if they refused to leave the property, they would be stunned with Tasers. When the pair refused to comply with the police order, they were stunned until they agreed to unlock themselves..."

Well, here we go. A crystal-clear example of what is now called "torture". For those that haven't been following along, please review the right-hand column where it is all explained in great detail.

Perhaps these officers didn't get the memo. Perhaps the taser training they received was flawed (likely). Perhaps their employer didn't provide proper guidance. Perhaps they weren't clever enough to bring along a set of chain cutters. Maybe their radios weren't working so they couldn't call for a set of chain cutters.

But there's no assurance that the local court will even get this one right. It might have to go all the way to the US Supreme Court.

I hope that these two protesters don't cave-in and settle for a piddling settlement. They should hold-out for an extreme amount or a ruling, not for the money but to make the point.

Thursday, March 13, 2008

I've been witness to thousands of arguments over the years. One very common cause of disagreements is people having the same data point, but different unspoken reference points. Unless someone intervenes to make sure that they understand that they're arguing about the reference points, not the data point, then they will never be able to see each other's point of view.

For example (and "7%" is just an example) if something bad is happening at a rate of 7% then some people might think that 7% is a fairly low rate and it isn't too much to panic about. These people are using the unspoken reference point of 100%. To them, they look at 7% along the green line in the sketch below. In other words, 'We could be abusing everyone, so 7% isn't too bad.'

Other people might look at the same data point, 7%, and they may be very upset about such a high rate. They're using the unspoken reference point of 0%. They're looking at 7% along the red line in the sketch below. In other words, 'Any abuse is unacceptable.'

So, when it comes to such issues as the following:

Taser abuse and misuse

Risks not clearly identified and explicitly defined

Abuse of human rights

Unethical behaviour by officers

Lack of clarity by weapons manufacturers

Errors in training - facts or philosophy or approach

...Where do you set your reference point?

If someone is taking the opposite argument, then ask them point blank: Are you comparing this level of abuse to some imagined world where it might be 100% abuse? Or are you comparing this level of abuse to the standard which is ZERO TOLERANCE as you should be?

This is a very common axis of disagreement. And sneaky 'master-debaters' use this technique all the time to say one thing, and then claim the opposite point via subtly-faulty logic.

Millionaire / Taser-Director Kroll basically states that swine models are a poor replacement for human studies. This is in the context of pigs (even large pigs) having serious cardiac reactions to X26 taser shocks (ventricle fibrillation, even death). Reproducible issues (several studies). There seems to be no direct arument from Kroll/Taser on this point. So they've retreating to the position that pigs are "easy to fibrillate" (flying in the face of measures taken by independent researchers to compensate for the known deltas).

Are pigs significantly (15-to-1) easier to fibrillate than humans? Or more like 2-to-1, or maybe 3 to-1 easier?

The only way these two Taser positions would make any sense would be if swine were at least something like twenty times easier to fibrillate (significantly more than the supposed human safety margin of 15-to-1). That I doubt very much.

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

...A Paris court ordered SMP Technologies, which supplies the French police, to pay legal fees and 3,000 euros ($4,600) in fines to Amnesty for bringing an unwarranted suit against it over a paper the group published denouncing the Taser. ...

Of course the video is on YouTube (not just once either). It wouldn't be fair to link to it, but all you'd have to do is search YouTube for the blatantly-obvious keywords. By the way - I have nothing to do with the video being on YouTube.

I've seen the video. The tasering was completely unnecessary and a clear violation of 'everything' (laws, rights, common sense, human dignity, etc.).

I wonder if police stations should have walls made of glass? Or perhaps their CCTV streams should be streamed to the Internet? Something has to be done to rein-in such disgusting taser abuse.

If the police themselves are going to be bringing the administration of justice into disrepute, then the whole country is headed to hell in a hand-basket. The country requires police forces that are respected. Any officers or senior staff that work against maintaining this essential reputation, should be severely disciplined. This should be considered to be one-thousand times more important than protecting one's own.

Dover, Delaware -- Legislation to make the unauthorized use of a Taser or similar electronic stun guns a felony was tabled by a House committee today for a technical correction. ... The legislation would not prohibit the use of a stun gun for self-defense. It also would not affect the use of the devices by law enforcement and security officers in the performance of their duties.

The above description is a bit vague when it comes to Taser misuse and abuse by officers. It would be nice if the legislation was clarified so that such misuse and abuse by officers, which would not rationally be described as a "duty", would also be included as an explicit felony.

In case you think that such abuse would never happen, the Utah speeder (Jared Massey) that was tasered for no apparent reason by a Utah Highway Patrol trooper (Jon Gardner) is getting a cheque for $40,000.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

POLICE in Nova Scotia should keep Tasers holstered until a provincial review of the potent weapons is completed and any recommendations acted upon.

That’s been our stance on Tasers since the review was announced last fall, when a number of Taser-related deaths in Canada, including in Nova Scotia, garnered headlines from coast to coast. We see no reason to change that position now that the initial findings of that review have been made public. Simply put, more studies are needed on how Tasers can impact the human body, and more consistency – and restraint – is necessary in police training and rules of engagement using the stun guns.

The findings of the provincial review, released last week, only reinforce our belief that government should implement a temporary moratorium on police use of Tasers. The Justice Department study found widely inconsistent rules for their use, along with uneven training programs. (The weapons can deliver thousands of volts of electricity, incapacitating a subject.)

The review found that police officers in various parts of the province are following different guidelines on the number of times a Taser should be used against an individual, whether firing a Taser at a subject requires prior approval from a supervisor and even about the types of warnings to be issued to someone who may be about to be Tasered.

In the wake of a disturbing number of deaths in Canada in recent years – as well as in other countries – after individuals were Tasered by police, a number of troubling questions remain unanswered. Despite claims by Taser proponents the weapons are safe, scientists and doctors have raised concerns about possible links between Tasers and potential heart and respiration problems, mental health and an individual’s state of exhaustion or agitation in confrontations with authorities. Certainly, too many people have ended up dying after incidents in which they were Tasered.

The public has also been concerned about what seems to be inappropriate use of Tasers in certain situations, such as when a Dartmouth teenage girl was Tasered by police officers in her own bedroom in February, 2007. In that regard, the provincial review’s finding that rules for deploying Tasers in Nova Scotia are all over the map is not reassuring. Critics are also worried Tasers are being used in Halifax at a rate far greater than in Toronto.

Public confidence in police use of Tasers has been shaken by deaths that have occurred, as well as when and how the weapons are used. Tasers should not be used until that confidence is restored.

I would add one more thing. Such reviews are often derailed by too much Taser influence. Taser would probably want to provide input. They'll thump down huge volumes of propaganda and few people would have time to do anything but weigh it. The police, often brainwashed by Taser training, will obviously be there. These groups all have vested interest in the outcome. Many of the so-called "experts" will have been bought and paid-for by Taser.

This presents a very difficult dilemma. How do you reach a reasonable conclusion in the face of such relationships between the players in the entire industry?

Make sure that equal time is given to the critics.

Discount all testimony given by those with a vested interest. Many of the proponents of tasers have vested interests. Most of the critics have no such interests.

Pay special attention to those studies that HAVE found problems.

Use basic logic: If there are a dozen studies that FAILED to find a problem and one study that DID find a problem, then there's probably a problem. That's basic logic: You can't prove a negative.

A few posts back I mentioned the article by Capt. Greg Meyer (ret.) - SPONSORED BY TASER.

He stated that "...you won't find..." any studies critical of taser safety.

So I sent him a sample list of five such studies. The list was intended to be just a simple counter-example with four spares. There are many more such studies.

So Capt. was WRONG. He didn't do his research. He claims to have a journalism degree, but he merely prints propaganda from Taser. He apparently wasn't even aware of the ever-growing science on the other side of the issue. Not very good journalism. Seriously.

So, prompted by my e-mail, Capt apparently called up his apparently-good-friend, a certain millionaire Director of Taser: Dr. Mark Kroll, and updated his article with a Kroll-quote (i.e. rubbish) without backing down. Kroll basically states that swine models are a poor replacement for human studies.

Okay humanoid-with-a-bowtie; stop talking and open your shirt.

I challenge Dr. Millionaire Kroll to allow an experiment to be conducted upon his person.

An X26 taser directly across the chest (with barbs carefully placed for worst case highest risk) and tasered repeatedly until the batteries run out (about 200 five-second shocks). This should be about 16 minutes duration, not including the short gaps between each trigger press. This shouldn't take any more than about half an hour.

According to Dr. Kroll's theories, he will be perfectly fine. No risk of any cardiac impact.

And I'd like to see the test supervised by Ruggieri to ensure that Taser doesn't pull any funny business.

HALIFAX -- In the wake of recent publicity about police use of tasers in Nova Scotia, new statistics show RCMP officers in the province drew those weapons 132 times between 2005 and 2007. RCMP Sgt. Mark Gallagher said the figures show that in 85% of those cases, police were dealing with a person who was either drunk or high on drugs.

In 60% of cases, the person was unarmed.

In previous generations, the nightly rounding up of the drunks was a rather-friendly ritual. Now they need to taser unarmed drunks? Good grief!

Keep in mind that the largest cities in NS have their own police forces. So these RCMP statistics cover perhaps half the population, and probably less than half the drunks and druggies.

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

"...a key function of the civilian Taser that differs from the police version: When the trigger is pressed three times, the civilian model pumps out current for 90 seconds. That enables the user to place the unit on the ground and leave the area, while the target remains temporarily incapacitated." (link)

With all the news about how long-duration taserings (with police models) can be very dangerous, doesn't this 90-second option seem to be insane? The only possible factor might be that the civilian model has a much weaker waveform and that this would increase the safety margin.

1) Judge wrote: The analysis changes, however, with the arrival of Officer Castro. At this point, there were two officers to control the situation. [see 41]

The judge found that the subsequent taserings were illegal. Compare this to the news that the average number of police present at taser incidents in Montreal is SIX. That would seem, by this judge's reasoning, that most taserings in Montreal would be illegal (based on the numbers).

2) Judge wrote: Officer Myers ("expert witness" for the defense) has a business relationship with Taser International. He is sent by Taser International on trips around the world to promote the use of Tasers and instruct police departments on their use. He also has an ownership interest in a small consulting group that Taser International contracts with for pre-release versions of some of its equipment. He has been named a "Senior Master Instructor Armorer" by Taser International. [see 65]

File this sort of relationship under 'Ethically-challenged' (with respect to presenting ones self as an expert witness).

Monday, March 3, 2008

"Why don't you ask to see the 'several reliable studies' that supposedly indicate that the Taser is dangerous? You won't find them..." Capt. Greg Meyer (ret.)

Capt. That gross factual error gets you an automatic 'F' grade.

There are many such studies, but you won't find them highlighted in your brainwashing propaganda from Taser. I'm not going to list them all, but it only requires one to prove you wrong. Here are several:

This is by no means an exhaustive list. And the list of such studies will only increase now that the Taser monopoly on taser studies has been broken.

And, as I've already pointed out many times, the X26 taser is more dangerous than the older models.

Meyer: "Tasers have been in police use for 30 years."

The most dangerous taser, the X26, was introduced in 2003. Models with shooting barbs that tend to be aimed across the chest are also fairly new (1999?). Your statements are propaganda and very misleading.

PS: Capt's column is "Sponsored by Taser" which explains the very high level of crapola.

Here is an extract from a letter to the editor where the medical researchers appear to have been bamboozled by Taser propaganda.

"...although our data show that rapid myocardial capture can occur with an implanted device, this observation should be viewed in the context of the use of the taser device that provides an alternative to the use of lethal force in law enforcement situations."

I guess these doctors are unaware of the many examples of taser abuse. They should know that the taser more often replaces talking than replaces lethal force.

Corrected version (what they should have written):

"...our data show that rapid myocardial capture can occur with an implanted device. When this observation is combined with the apparent excessively high rate of taser use (and/or misuse), it raises important societal questions about the unexpected risks and questionable real-world cost-benefit ratio of the taser in law enforcement situations."

Sunday, March 2, 2008

The Modesto Bee - ...A forensic pathologist concluded that Abston's death was caused by cardiac arrhythmia from an enlarged heart, compounded by excited delirium with meth intoxication... "I don't know of any proven history where a Taser has been the proximate cause of death," Merced Police Chief Russ Thomas said. ...Abston previously had heart surgery and had an internal heart defibrillator. ...

Observations:1) I find it interesting that they'll include every possible contributing factor EXCEPT the taser. They've even included 'excited delirium' which isn't even real science by any reasonable standard. It seems illogical to exclude one proximate factor while including all the others. Why would this be?

2) It has already been pointed out that an internal defibrillator, specifically the wiring that leads from the device to the heart, may conduct the taser pulse directly to the heart' pacemaker center. Taser spokes-puppets pretend not to understand this point. There's nothing controversial about this proposal; that conductive wires conduct. Why doesn't the report make the connection? They mention the device for one propaganda purpose, but fail to include the other possible connection.

[Update: Medical researchers have pulled some very interesting data out of the 'black box' recorder contained within a pacemaker [correction]. More later...]

3) The statement by Chief Thomas is nonsense to highest possible degree. At least two coroners are presently being sued for exactly that conclusion. Thomas is (at best) ill-informed; at worst he's been severely brainwashed by Taser.

It is entirely possible that their findings are generally correct, but the illogic used along the way stinks. It has that disgusting whiff of Taser propaganda and influence about it.

Komputer tłumaczenie nie jest doskonały.

The primary purpose of the Excited-Delirium.com blog (don't forget the dash!) is to carefully examine the various, ever-evolving, always subtly-wrong, pro-taser arguments and systematically shred them. So far, we've been very successful.

And, along the way, we've uncovered some 'very interesting' findings.

The blog now has more than 2000 posts covering almost every possible angle of the issue. Everything is eventually linked back to outside sources to permit fact-checking. I trust that you'll find the blog thoughtful, illuminating and useful.

Thanks for visiting.

The Excited-Delirium blog now has nearly 2000 posts.

An [Index] is now regularly-updated. The search function via the index works great.

This blog is broken up into many dozens of 40-post pages to reduce page load-times. Look for the 'Older Posts' link at bottom to navigate to the previous sections. If you're new to the subject, make yourself comfortable, there's lots of material.

Don't ignore this right hand column; there are some important disclaimers and legal notices there. As well as my opinions on lawful force and related issues.

If you're a reporter, then please fact-check everything for yourself. I've provided links, references and extracts to make that as easy as possible. Often the links will lead to previous related posts before finally pointing to outside sources. It's my way of building up the chain of evidence and argument. It's just another couple of clicks to reach outside sources. And you can always use Google to do your own fact-finding.

I strive to be accurate and fair, but some errors are inevitable. I will correct any errors if they're brought to my attention, but that doesn't mean that I accept Taser's view on controversial issues.

1. Obviously, this blog covers a matter of (huge) public interest. That is self-evident.2. My diligence in uncovering true facts (more than a few that are, without a doubt, embarassing to Taser International), documenting their exact source via explicit Internet 'LINKS', quoting or linking to Taser International's own information, etc. All this is also obvious. Consider also the life-and-death seriousness of the taser "safety" issue, the obvious public importance, the relative urgency (not to be confused with the government action), the overall reliability of the sources (all linked for fact checking), opportunities provided for rebuttals or corrections by submitted comment or by email, even repeatedly imploring them to respond to several logical 'challenges', and that my (our) concerns about this issue are perfectly justifiable, not to mention perfectly true.

The long-standing policies of this blog are perfectly aligned with this ruling.

Just in case push comes to shove.

...

Ta-ser (ta zer) n. - An occasionally-lethal electro-torture device dressed up in deceptive high-tech window dressing. More portable than extension cords, rubber gloves, booster cables and damp sponges. It emits 50,000 volts (peak) and use can lead to lawsuits with five- or six-figure settlements.

Why "Excited-Delirium.com" ???

It's used in the sense of "excited delirium"my ass.

I don't believe it. My finely-honed 'BS Detector' pegs when I see that flimsy excuse being dragged out.

But my real intent in choosing this counter-intuitive name was to preempt Taser's use of the phrase.

Now, every time Taser uses the phrase excited delirium, they are essentially advertising this blog. This blog is now on the first page for any Google search [LINK] for the phrase excited delirium. I love it.

Taser et al hate it. They've been forced to switch to the new meaningless empty phrase Sudden Death Following Restraint (shouldn't that be '...During Restraint'?). If you look at that phrase closely, you can see that it is a placeholder for ignorance.

So by choosing the name Excited-Delirium.com, I have made a good attempt at preempting Taser's use of the phrase excited delirium.

And it is not as if they could actually trademark the phrase...(see the Trademark Notice section for the rest of the joke).

Do NOT overlook these older key posts as listed and linked below. Also, please take the time to review all the items in this sidebar as well.

Criminal Code of Canada on torture

269.1 (1) Every [Peace Officer] who inflicts [severe pain] on any other person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

I've [rolled up] some definitions for your convenience. Please refer to the complete section for details. Note that the only possible exception is as a 'lawful sanction' which appears to be intended to permit prisons and fines.

It really seems pretty clear...

Disclaimers

There may be the occasional error or omission in this blog. I've tried to be as accurate as I can, but please check all information for yourself before using it for any significant purpose.

If you have any particular concerns about what you perceive is an inaccuracy or significant omission, please do not hesitate to contact the blog at the e-mail address given (in this right-hand column, in the cute little baby-blue box). I will be happy to make any required corrections provided that your request is self-evidently reasonable, or is backed-up with trust-worthy scientific evidence.

Any incoming legal documents will be immediately scanned-in and published. If you don't want this to happen, then don't bother sending them. If you send in such legal documents, that action on your part indicates your legal and binding agreement that such documents may be scanned in and published on this weblog and others (3rd party, such as Chilling Effect and EFF). You agree that this legal disclaimer takes precedence over any copyright notices that may be contained on, or with, or applicable to, your submissions. You agree that the copyright of all such legal documents is assigned to the party receiving same. This agreement will also apply in reverse (we must be fair).

For Taser's point of view on many of these issues, please head on over to their website. This intent of this blog is to provide the other side of the story; therefore their views on controversial issues will generally not be included here.

Every post is subject to being continuously updated without notice to correct typos, minor inaccuracies, improve wording, make more clear, or for any other purpose.

Navigation note:

This blog, like most, is bottom-up in time. But you can start from the top if you want, but you might have to work bottom-up within any subject for it to make sense.

Hit Counter

A Point to Ponder - Part 1

Since when did 'compliance' to police orders become mandatory on pain of death(*) or of immediate application of excruciating pain (torture)?

(* Except - obviously and reasonably - in the case of something like 'Drop that gun!" And apparently, in Canada, attempting to escape from prison.)

For example: if a police officer tells you to get into the back seat of his police car, and you don't (in a passive manner similar to Ghandi), is the police officer:

1) Allowed to kill you?2) Allowed to induce unnecessary severe pain (torture)?3) Allowed to pick-up your sorry ass and shove it, and you, into the back seat of his police car himself (or with others helping); and if you accidentally bonk your head on the way in, too bad?

I thought that the ONLY correct answer was #3, and I don't recall ever getting a memo that said that #1 or #2 were EVER considered to be legal.

I'll repeat that because it's REALLY important...

I don't think that options #1 nor #2 are EVER considered to be legal.

If there is a law about obeying a police officer's orders, and you don't, then it should result in just ONE MORE CHARGE and (maybe) ANOTHER 30 DAYS IN JAIL (or whatever). It certainly doesn't justify #1 nor #2.

Such a law, where such laws exist, is just another law. It is not a blank check for police to commit murder, nor to commit abuse.

Passive disobedience should never be considered to allow #1 (murder) or #2 (abuse) by the police under any circumstances (except, as mentioned above, in the case of "Drop the gun!")

Did I miss the memo? Or have we all forgotten our 'Civics' lessons from Grade 6?

Continued below...

A Point to Ponder - Part 2

Some of you might still be wondering why #2 isn't permissible.

Well, let's think about that for a second...

Imagine that instead of tasering YOU (the passive-resistive subject), the police officer grabs YOUR CHILD and starts to taser your child until you obey his verbal orders to get in the back of his car. I'm sure that this sort of emotional extortion would be highly effective in most cases, but would it be acceptable?

Well obviously not. Tasering a subject's child to coerce obedience from the subject is completely unacceptable and totally illegal in any civilized country.

So what's the difference between the passively-resisting subject and the subject's innocent child?

Answer: NOTHING.

You might be thinking that the subject is breaking the law (or laws) and therefore deserves to be punished.

Yeah, maybe. But that's for the court to decide. Remember all that mumbo-jumbo about 'innocent until proven guilty'?

In the eyes of The Law, the subject is exactly as innocent as the child until he is convicted in a court of law.

This Philosophy-101 thought-experiment clearly demonstrates that a very common (the most common?) actual field application of the taser (i.e. pain compliance) is illegal in any civilized country.

I'm honestly surprised that this point hasn't been the subject of successful lawsuits ten-thousand times over by now.

And the Taser training material and methods should be closely reviewed to ensure that they haven't been promoting this sort of illegal pain-compliance abuse (such as 'Drive-mode'). If they've been the source of this confusion, then I hope that they're somehow sucked into the civil rights lawsuits.

Continued below...

A Point to Ponder - Part 3

Why has the legal system failed to pursue this point each and every time that someone's rights are so flagrantly violated?

I think that the authorities are getting confused between the two different words, both spelled 'force'. It's as simple as noun versus verb.

Legal or lawful force is physical force (noun) sufficient to accomplish the goal and no more. It means that if the police want someone to get into the back seat of the police car, then the police are entitled to physically place the subject into the back seat of the police car using reasonable amounts of physical force (noun).

For back-up of this statement, please refer to the following blog post regarding the Criminal Code of Canada - lawful force where the conclusion is that "...the Criminal Code of Canada ... the word 'force', when applied to the concept of lawful force, is ALWAYS a noun, NEVER a verb."

Another meaning of the word 'force' would be an extortion (or an intimidation, or a coercion). As in to 'force' (verb) someone to do something.

Examples of this meaning include:

"Get in the car or we'll taser your child."

"Get in the car or we'll taser you."

"Get in the car or we will beat your child with a club."

"Get in the car or we will beat you with a club."

"Get in the car or we'll shoot your dog."

"Get in the car or we'll torture you with a cattle-prod."

"Get in the police car or we'll kick-in the grill of your car."

All of these statements are clearly illegal. They're a form of extortion or coercion (which is illegal), and they're threats of police abuse (which are also illegal). And if the threat is actually carried out, those actions would also be illegal.

What would be legal or lawful approach is something like the following:

"Get in the police car. Or we will place you in the police car anyway, and then we will ALSO charge you with 'Failure to obey...' and perhaps 'Resisting Arrest', in accordance with (chapters and verses). It is your choice sir, and I'll give you another few seconds to consider your options."

Now, doesn't that sound more civilized? And it sounds strangely familiar too. Like from another era (1968?) when perhaps people understood the subtle meaning of words slightly better than it seems that they do now.

A Point to Ponder - Conclusion

The boundary between what constitutes lawful force (noun), and what constitutes illegal police abuse, is a very fine line.

But with the subtle distinction described above, it is also (thankfully) a very clear and distinct line, and one that can be easily tested in court.

It is an important distinction that is critical to forming the basis of the society.

If you live in a society that generally permits the police to force (verb) people to obey their orders, then (putting it simply) you live in what amounts to a police state. On that side of the very fine line is a very slippery slope.

But if you live in a society where the police powers are generally limited to issuing tickets and making arrests, where the determination of guilt and assignment of punishment of any form is the strict domain of the courts, where the police are never allowed to apply severe pain as a method to force (verb) compliance or as an on-the-spot punishment, then you live in a society that is under the Rule of Law.

We obviously need a clear boundary. This appears to be a very good one. It also seems that it is already written into the Criminal Code of Canada. But it really seems that we've forgotten.

What has been missing is a more aggressive approach on the part of lawyers representing victims of abuse, and perhaps less tolerance from the courts to fanciful tales of 'high risk' encounters with people that obviously pose very little risk on any sensible scale.

If the police officers involved in some of these incidents are so risk-adverse that they're willing to taser someone before trying other approaches, then perhaps those police should be reassigned to a nice (very safe) desk job for the next year or two, or perhaps they should even be forced to permanently change careers away from policing to something with less risk.

The take-away point is this:

Lawful 'force' is a noun, never a verb.

Disclaimer:

Nothing in this blog shall be construed as counseling the commission of any offense in any manner. This blog is simply a discussion about an important social issue. There are some examples mentioned herein that are clearly intended to clarify discussion points. For example, I do not recommend that anyone disobeys a police officer's lawful direction, especially where such disobedience would be an offense. I am not procuring, soliciting nor inciting anything illegal.

Criminal Code of Canada: R.S., c. C-34, s. 26.

"Every one who is authorized by law to use force [noun!] is criminally responsible for any excess thereof according to the nature and quality of the act that constitutes the excess."

Extreme-pain, extra-judicial punishment device

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. Using the taser as an extreme-pain extra-judicial punishment device is ALWAYS illegal.

In other words, once the police have the subject under control, then any further applications of the taser as 'punishment' constitute torture, unlawful abuse, and a clear violation of civil rights. Have a look at YouTube for far-too-many examples of this exact crime.

There are examples where, after the fact, the police force and prosecutor will strike a bargain with the victim along the lines of, "We'll ignore your heinous crime if you ignore ours."

What SHOULD happen is that the local prosecuting attorney should go after BOTH parties. The subject should be prosecuted for whatever misdemeanor he committed, and the police officer(s) for all the applicable serious crimes that they may have committed.

The local prosecuting attorney should not be in the business of trading-off one crime against another. In fact, negotiating such a trade (often on behalf of the police, for the purpose of 'making it go away') should itself be a crime. There have even been horror stories where the prosecutor reportedly threatened to pile-on more charges to intimidate the victim into not suing everyone involved.

Sarcasm

Here's an idea that might explain the 'unexpected' lethality of the tasers:

Maybe some victims really believed in their bones that they were in a free and democratic 'Rule of Law' society - as opposed to a police state where they could be tortured in public. So, while they are contemplating the meaning and purpose of life during the longest five seconds of their life, they decide that they are now so disappointed at what has happened to their country, that they basically just lose the will to live.

Look at the common sense: If we have 3000 people standing around one afternoon drinking Tim Hortons coffee and tasering each other for laughs, will 20 of them topple over dead if there wasn't some sort of connection? Even if some of them were snorting cocaine and fighting, 20/3000 is still one heck of a death rate. The fact that these incidents are spread out in time, doesn't change the absurd ratio.

And if the country-wide total denominator is actually much higher than 3000 (thereby helping to reduce this apparent taser-related death ratio) because of other organizations (other than the RCMP) also being taser trigger-happy, then this recalculation simply adds fuel to the fire about how often the tasers are being misused in Canada (as evidenced by the even larger excessive deployment rate)!

Trademark Notice

In this blog, the word 'Taser' is generally used to refer to TASER International, Inc. The exceptions are primarily in quotations from others. This usage is nominative, fair and reasonable because that's the company to which I'm referring.

In this blog, the word 'taser' is generally used to refer to the X26 or M26 Conducted Energy Weapons. And 'X26' and 'M26' are used to refer to those specific Taser products. Again, this usage is nominative, fair and reasonable because those are the products to which I'm referring.

'Excited Delirium' is apparently not a registered trademark of Taser, although sometimes it seems that way.

Copyright "Fair Use" Notice

This blog will contain occasional small extracts from documents and related material that may be copyrighted by TASER International, Inc., or by other companies or organizations.

FAIR USE (FAIR DEALING) is claimed for purposes including but not limited to education, criticism, reporting and informed discussion of an important public policy issue.

All copyrighted material used in this blog (webpage) is property of the respective owners and is being used without explicit permission. The publication of the extracts has not been authorized by, associated with or sponsored by the copyright owner.

E-D blog Privacy Policy

It is obvious that one of the purposes of this blog is to expose the seemingly-sleazy connections between Taser International, their fan-boys and those that promote 'excited delirum'. Therefore, if you're suspected of being any of those, then the details of your visits to this blog may be made public.

Legal Disclaimer

Everything in this blog shall be construed as being nothing more than my personal opinions. There may be minor, trivial inaccuracies in some of the details. However, the main point remains valid and that is that there exists, in some cases, a connection between being Tasered and being dead (this connection has been, according to some authorities, legally established). And there are plenty more legal disclaimers and notices to be found in the right hand column.